jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (03/26/91)
Not ONLY does the new TP IDE run under Windows (even in enhanced mode), you can use the TDW while *IN* TP, according to PC Week. Oh yeah, class library for Windows is included for TP for Windows, but NOT for BC++. And you still have TurboVision for Pascal, but nothing comparable for BC++ or TC++. *sigh* What about *US*? Geez, you'd think that Borland would be about fair all the way around, but it seems to *me* that C programmers are not getting the same quality of tools that Pascal programmers are getting. Of course, then again, I am just whining.... Brian
njacobs@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs) (03/26/91)
In article <27650@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes...
[List of features in TP for Windows but not in BC++, omitted
- see original posting]
You forgot to mention the unkindest cut of all. The price of TP for
Windows is little more than HALF the price of BC++.
Nick
<standard disclaimer>altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (03/28/91)
In article <27650@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >Not ONLY does the new TP IDE run under Windows (even in enhanced mode), you >can use the TDW while *IN* TP, according to PC Week. Oh yeah, class >library for Windows is included for TP for Windows, but NOT for BC++. And >you still have TurboVision for Pascal, but nothing comparable for BC++ or >TC++. *sigh* What about *US*? Geez, you'd think that Borland would be >about fair all the way around, but it seems to *me* that C programmers are >not getting the same quality of tools that Pascal programmers are getting. > >Of course, then again, I am just whining.... > I know I am going to regret saying this, BUT: C++ is much more complicated than a version of Pascal designed specificly for Windows programing. How else can they support a one "Hello, World!" program for Windows? TP is Borland's own language, they don't need to follow anyone else's specs on how things should work. If it doesn't work the way they liek thye can change it. Borland doesn't need to worry about compatibility with code from other people compilers. Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. So far from my experience using BC++, I like it alot better than MS C 6.0 and and SDK. Sure, there are some things wish I wish were there from the SDK (but then again I own it so big deal). I would expect that we will all be receiving another upgrade notice by the end of the summer for a Windows version of the IDE. On Compuserve, Borland has posted some rudimentary Windows classes. Actually, the best thing that we as members of the net would do would be to start a discussion on what the classes should look like. Then maybe Sidney from Borland would pass them onto the developers and we would get what we are looking for. >Brian > -- - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/28/91)
From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): > > Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or > not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they > wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. > Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >In article <27650@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >> [stuff deleted] >>Of course, then again, I am just whining.... >> > >I know I am going to regret saying this, BUT: > >C++ is much more complicated than a version of Pascal designed specificly >for Windows programing. How else can they support a one "Hello, World!" >program for Windows? > >TP is Borland's own language, they don't need to follow anyone else's >specs on how things should work. If it doesn't work the way they liek >thye can change it. Of course they can't ... not if they want to sell the product. C++ is not Borlands own language. BC++ follows as closely as possible the AT&T 2.0 C++ specification as does Zortech and others. The AT&T specification is as close to a standard that exists for the language. Glenn
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): >> >> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or >> not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they >> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. >> > >Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? I think that their scam is to immediately take "something useful" (as they so elegantly put it) right to market. But the way it really is is that they want to make millions on an unfinished, unpolished product, and force people to upgrade in just a few months down the road when the complete package is finished. I will bet I`ll be getting an upgrade notice in a few months and I'll be requested to pay another $100. for the enhancements that should have been included within this release. The thing that gets on my nerves is that I was too stupid to inquire about the Windows-based IDE and, more importantly, the Windows class library ... I just expected that it was included (didn't seem like a mistake that Borland would make). Now I know better. Glenn
robind@code3.com (Robin Dunn) (03/30/91)
In article <4609@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> njacobs@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <27650@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes... > [List of features in TP for Windows but not in BC++, omitted > - see original posting] > >You forgot to mention the unkindest cut of all. The price of TP for >Windows is little more than HALF the price of BC++. That's because it's a little more than HALF the product. To get the equivellent of BC++ you would need to get TP for DOS *and* TP for windows. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin P. Dunn ...!uunet!code3!robind 3M Health Information Systems robind@code3.com Code3 Product Development (801) 265-4820
ergo@netcom.COM (Isaac Rabinovitch) (03/30/91)
In <4609@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> njacobs@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nick Jacobs) writes: >In article <27650@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes... > [List of features in TP for Windows but not in BC++, omitted > - see original posting] >You forgot to mention the unkindest cut of all. The price of TP for >Windows is little more than HALF the price of BC++. >Nick ><standard disclaimer> Except that the upgrade price is the same ($100). And you're entitled to the upgrade price (for Pascal for Windows) if you already own any Borland language. *And* there's a further discount if you're an educator. Also, Borland C++ is a hybrid (DOS/Windows) product, and I'm pretty sure TPfW is pure Windows. -- ergo@netcom.com Isaac Rabinovitch netcom!ergo@apple.com Silicon Valley, CA {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo (specific statement withheld at this time for operational reasons)
ergo@netcom.COM (Isaac Rabinovitch) (03/30/91)
In <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or >> not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they >> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. >> >Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? Wondered about this myself, so I left a message in their CIS forum. I pointed out that their claim to be a complete Windows platform was bogus if I couldn't make help files. They replied that they had licensed the MS Help compiler and would eventually provide it to all registered owners of BC++. (Wonder if they made that decision before or after reading my message?) Based on the Squeaky Wheel principle, I'd suggest that everybody who wants/needs this call them up and ask when they'll actually get round to this. BTW, it seems to me that the Windows Help Engine would make a nice general purpose hypertext system. -- ergo@netcom.com Isaac Rabinovitch netcom!ergo@apple.com Silicon Valley, CA {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo (specific statement withheld at this time for operational reasons)
symtam@lion.uwaterloo.ca (Simon Tam) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu>, cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): > > > > Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or > > not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they > > wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. > > > > Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? > Ha, I seriously doubt that Borland will ever be able to create a version of Microsoft's Help Compiler. This would require that Borland decipher the file format of .hlp files. I doubt that Microsoft would ever release this to them simply because they are licensing the Help Compiler to Borland already and thus force Borland to use it to round out their development kit. I think it would be a large feat for Borland to be able to development their own help compiler which is compatible with Windows Help 3.0. Just out of curiousity, why are you wondering why Borland should come out with their own compiler? Is it that people don't like using the Microsoft Help Compiler? I know that building a help file is kind of cumbersome and that an integrated building environment would be much nicer. What else is the problem? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Lies, damn lies and then there are college lectures." -anonymous -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >>From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): >>> >>> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or >>> not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they >>> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. >>> >> >>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? > >I think that their scam is to immediately take "something useful" (as they >so elegantly put it) right to market. But the way it really is is that they >want to make millions on an unfinished, unpolished product, and force people >to upgrade in just a few months down the road when the complete package is >finished. I will bet I`ll be getting an upgrade notice in a few months and >I'll be requested to pay another $100. for the enhancements that should have >been included within this release. > >The thing that gets on my nerves is that I was too stupid to inquire about >the Windows-based IDE and, more importantly, the Windows class library ... >I just expected that it was included (didn't seem like a mistake that >Borland would make). Now I know better. > >Glenn Well, if you feel that strongly about it and don't think that you want to exercise you right to upgrade at this moment and don't feel that BC++ was worth it. THEN CALL UP BORLAND'S CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK FOR AN "rETURN MERCHANDISE AUTHORIZATION NUMBER". I have a feeling that Borland will take it back and then in a few months when the Windows based IDE and and the class libraries (ObjectWindows) are included you can re-order it. But for the meantime, please stop this whining like a four year old. You are responsible for your own actions. If you feel you made a mistake try to correct and be more careful next time. The rest of us do not have to hear your screaming. I have found BC++ to be 1000 times easy to use for developing my Windows applications than C 6.0a and the SDK (which I own) The upgrade price was worth it if only for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit (LP $199.95). I will never have to look at a .RC file ever again. -- - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/31/91)
From article <1991Mar30.083246.16450@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, by symtam@lion.uwaterloo.ca (Simon Tam): > In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu>, cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > > Just out of curiousity, why are you wondering why Borland should come out > with their own compiler? Is it that people don't like using the Microsoft > Help Compiler? I know that building a help file is kind of cumbersome and > that an integrated building environment would be much nicer. What else is > the problem? I own the MS SDK. It cost me about $325. Thats a lot for a Help compiler to the newcomer to Windows. Remember, barring the DEBUG kernels, the Help compiler is all that is missing from full development. Borland claimed many things for which they need to deliver as yet. The Help compiler is one. I suppose there is an (immoral?) option, borrow someone elses Help compiler from the SDK. Fact is, supposedly when you bought Borland C++, the Help compiler was part of the deal. I guess its your choice as to whether it matters where it comes from. Are you licensed to the Help Compiler, or not??? |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/31/91)
From article <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): > In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: > > I have found BC++ to be 1000 times easy to use for developing my Windows > applications than C 6.0a and the SDK (which I own) The upgrade price > was worth it if only for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit (LP $199.95). > I will never have to look at a .RC file ever again. > I wonder only one thing. When MS comes out with their belated entry to the C++ market, what will it come with? What will new upgrades to the SDK come with. This I know, I don't really want to keep paying for two, staggered in time, updates. This I also know, I gotta have the DEBUG kernels (Mr. Borland, please get these). The last thing I am gonna say I know is that Borland better jump real fast when the 32-bit version stuff comes out. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: >>In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >>>From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): >>>> [stuff deleted ...] > >But for the meantime, please stop this whining like a four year old. >You are responsible for your own actions. If you feel you made a mistake >try to correct and be more careful next time. The rest of us do not >have to hear your screaming. If you like the product, and feel that you can voice your opinion on the net (and you have), why do you feel that I *don't* have the right to whine? And how is it that *you* represent everyone on the net? The "rest of us" is not everyone ... it is you. Why don't you speak for yourself and stop posting news claiming to represent the views of everyone? Glenn
ebergman@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) (04/02/91)
Turbo Pascal is an excellent product. So is BC++ 2.0 (I'm an enthusiastic user of both). I don't think Borland's trying to "shaft" the C programmers - esp. since they must be making an increasing percentage of their revenue from C compiler sales. I think that Turbo Pascal has simply been around longer, and they 've had more time to make improvements to it... Terrell
al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) (04/02/91)
>>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? >I pointed out that their claim to be a complete Windows platform was >bogus if I couldn't make help files. While we're on the topic, does anybody know of a cheap way to make RTF files without having to write them by hand?
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Mar30.163852.12490@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >In article <1991Mar28.153150.2794@welch.jhu.edu> glenn@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: >>In article <1991Mar27.210412.16532@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >>>From article <1991Mar27.173542.5153@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman): >>>> >>>> Plus, there are many things about BC++ that are either incomplete or >>>> not included. Borland has explained this away by saying that they >>>> wanted to go to market as soon as they had something reasonable to sell. >>>> >>> >>>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? >> [lots of whining deleted] >> >>Glenn > >Well, if you feel that strongly about it and don't think that you want to >exercise you right to upgrade at this moment and don't feel that BC++ was >worth it. THEN CALL UP BORLAND'S CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK FOR >AN "rETURN MERCHANDISE AUTHORIZATION NUMBER". > >I have a feeling that Borland will take it back and then in a few months when >the Windows based IDE and and the class libraries (ObjectWindows) are >included you can re-order it. > >But for the meantime, please stop this whining like a four year old. >You are responsible for your own actions. If you feel you made a mistake >try to correct and be more careful next time. The rest of us do not >have to hear your screaming. > >I have found BC++ to be 1000 times easy to use for developing my Windows >applications than C 6.0a and the SDK (which I own) The upgrade price >was worth it if only for the Whitewater Resource Toolkit (LP $199.95). >I will never have to look at a .RC file ever again. > I have to agree here 100%. I too own SDK and MSC and can tell you that working with BC++ is much better, the compiler and linker options are much simpler and I can create C++ classes and such for it. This is a big win, not to mention that it is half the price of Microsoft's environment. I was impressed by the fact that I could return it within 30 days for a full refund if I wasn't satisfied. Microsoft should provide that! :-) Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
markley@network.ucsd.edu (Mike Markley) (04/03/91)
In article <23984@well.sf.ca.us> al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) writes: > >>>Speaking of which, anybody see THEIR Help Compiler yet?????? > >>I pointed out that their claim to be a complete Windows platform was >>bogus if I couldn't make help files. > >While we're on the topic, does anybody know of a cheap way to make RTF >files without having to write them by hand? All of the Microsoft Word word processors will save to RTF. We use Word for Windows.